Talk:Second Northern Syria Buffer Zone

A buffer zone and a DMZ

Who called this agreement a buffer zone? There are no citations for it. Who called it a DMZ? No citations on that neither. There are also a lot of uncited sentences in the body of the paragraph so OR issues too. KasimMejia (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Literally the first citation in the article is titled "Turkey and Russia agree on deal over buffer zone in northern Syria". It's published by The Guardian, a very reputable source. The rest of the things you've tagged can very easily be referenced by clicking on the helpfully transcluded articles, which explain them in detail. Goodposts (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And? Does the agreement says something about a DMZ or buffer zone? And from where does 121km comes from? Beshogur (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the sources? The term "buffer zone" is not only factually correct, neutral and very relevant, but it's what reputable sources are referring to the zone as. The kilometers come from conversions. Some of the sources listed miles, which were converted into kilometers using a conversion template. Goodposts (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

First, which one is the buffer zone? If you're talking current Turkey's 120kmx32km zone? Your article is completely faulty. There's not a buffer zone right now. As I said, if it's about Turkey's zone which is between Ral al Ayn and Tall Abyad, you're article is not correct. What means "Built by Syrian Democratic Forces? SDF has nothing to say here. Beshogur (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Several very reputable sources, such as BBC and the Guardian beg to differ. As for "built by" - that is part of the infobox template. Wikipedia consensus holds that you use infobox military installation for DMZ agreements, and that's how the infobox template is structured. Goodposts (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Comment @Goodposts: You can't say this is a DMZ without a source saying it, hence factual accuracy is disputed, along with other failed verifications. All of which were tagged but you had the tags removed without addressing them all and @Sisuvia: has removed the maintenance templates. KasimMejia (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see what I've written bellow, thanks. Goodposts (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

---

@Goodposts: I'm not sure if Second Northern Syria Buffer Zone is the best fitting name since this is first agreement made by these parties about Northern Syria. I'm trying to think about something else, since this might cause confusion. What do you think? I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: I actually kind of agree with you, but I wanted to emphasize the relationship between this agreement and the previous Turkish-US agreement. The Sources dub it a "buffer zone", and since there already is a Northern Syria Buffer Zone, I added the prefix 'second'. But if you've got any ideas, I'm more than happy to listen. Goodposts (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is mostly referred to as 'buffer zone' or 'safe zone'. We might want to wait out first how things go regarding the withdrawal of YPG and the implementation of the joint patrols. If everything works out and safe zone holds, my preference would probably go to "Northern Syria demilitarization", similar to the deal made in Idlib. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be fine with "Northern Syria demilitarization" if it comes to it. The other editor, on the other hand, is likely to strongly object, though.. Goodposts (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: I think this can be considered a DMZ, since there is an agreement made between Russia and Turkey in which YPG elements and their weapons have to withdraw to the depth of 30km (19 miles) from the Turkish-Syrian border therefore forbidding "military installations, activities or personnel." Demilitarized zone I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't consider it, a source has to say it. Absence of SDF but the presence of other military's makes it a non DMZ. KasimMejia (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can. We don't need a source for every single word. Our own wikipedia article defines a DMZ as a "an area in which treaties or agreements between nations, military powers or contending groups forbid military installations, activities or personnel." - in this case, those of the SDF, as per the sources. The presense of other militaries doesn't make it a non-DMZ. You should read the article on the Korean Demilitarized Zone and see just how militarized a "demilitarized" zone could actually be. Despite this, I'm actually fine with it's redesignation as a "buffer zone", which is also an accurate description of the zone. Second, even if you've found some kind of issue with the article, you can't just say "article failed verification" and then proceed to remove any links pointing to it. That's just vandalism. People removed your maintenance templates, because they were added incorrectly. The fact that you don't like what was written doesn't mean it is original research or unverifiable. I took great care to use unbiased sources when writing this article. I also find it extremely ironic that despite the fact you insist on an extremely hardline view that every word needs a citation in one case, you find it fully acceptible to add badly cited text, such as the one, which claimed that the previous zone was 32 kilometers deep, which it wasn't. Nonetheless, I've reworked some of the text to avoid any potential issue with OR. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: "you can't just say "article failed verification" and then proceed to remove any links pointing to it. That's just vandalism." See: WP:NOTVANDALISM also see WP:GF. Spending a great amount of work does not mean you have the right to keep original research in the article. See: WP:OWN KasimMejia (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Neither of those apply in this case. You are correct that nobody owns wikipedia articles. But what I've added is not original research. There are tons of citations and transcluded articles. You simply refuse to read them. Why you do this I have no idea.... Anyway, I've added more as you seem to insist on reusing the same citation every sentence, even though the source verifies the entire paragraph. Fine, I hope you're happy now. Goodposts (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

US withdrawal caused the operation to start

A sentence in the article without citation states: In early October that same year, US President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of US forces from the region, which allowed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan dismiss the first buffer zone deal and launch his 2019 offensive into north-eastern Syria against the SDF. This is uncited and false, US withdrawal was directly caused by Turkey's start of the operation, on Monday Turkey informed the US of it's intention to start the OP, US announced withdrawal on Monday, and operation began on Wednesday. Source: [1]. KasimMejia (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The withdrawal began after a phone call between the Turkish and American presidents. There wouldn't have been any operation, had the US not withdrawn. Goodposts (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The length and dept of the patrol zone

Infobox is dubious since it states this is 121km wide and 19 miles deep. This measurement is that of Turkish, SNA controlled area. The buffer zone that is set to be patrolled by Russia SAA and Turkey is to stretch from Euphrates to Tall Abyad (10km deep) and from Ras al Ayn to Iraq border (excluding Qamishli also 10km deep). The patrols are set to start on 29 Oct 6pm. SDF is also not to participate and withdraw 30km from the border. KasimMejia (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new description fo the lenght. However, nowhere in the article was the claim made that the SDF would participate in joint patrols. We quite explicitly stated that they are to withdraw. Goodposts (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Areas where TAF will patrol

TAF will patrol along 10km area entirely except Qamishli, not only OP Peace Spring area. KasimMejia (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The TAF will conduct joint patrols with the Russian military, it will not control the area, just like it didn't control the area when it did joint patrols with the US under the previous deal. Goodposts (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Those patrols are not inside 120kmx32km zone of Turkey. The agreement literally says west of Ras al Ayn and east of Tal Abyad. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, but joint patrols does not mean control. They are there for monitoring and verification purposes - essentially a way for Turkey to see for itself that the rest of the agreement's clauses have been honored. The previous deal had a nearly identical provision for Turkish-US patrols. Goodposts (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said joint patrols will be west and east, thus outside of the Turkish zone. Beshogur (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct! However, joint patrols doesn't mean that they will control territory. Currently, the article explains that Turkey will control the area between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and outside of that will take place in joint patrols within the 10km zone. Goodposts (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The initial good start of the first deal

@Goodposts: You have removed the tag near this two times without adding a fist. According who, did the first deal had a good start. KasimMejia (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the note. If it doesn't please you, then read the Northern Syria Buffer Zone article, which details what the parties thought of as a "good start" in detail. Goodposts (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

SDF was to leave military presence in safe zone under the first deal

@Goodposts: You have removed the tag next to this two times without adding a citation as well. You also broke 1RR by doing so. KasimMejia (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Pretty sure the article isn't yet under the Syrian civil war sanction limiting editors to just one revert every 24 hours. Sisuvia (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. PS, can you please create a heading for all of the problems under the article, so that both I and the other editors can address you in one centralised place instead of having to reply to 50 different comments? You currently have about 7 headings here, and several more on my talk page. Goodposts (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)